This letter will reply to your letter of March 13, 1978, regarding legal
descriptions, but additionally, I feel compelled to pass along some more of
my thoughts.

First, we have checked the legal descriptions and they do coincide with the
maps which you furnished showing the proposed addition to this District. I'm
sure you'd like me to stop with that so that you could say that we agree with
the boundary change. But, Jim, this is the whole point that seems to keep
coming back to us.

We have previously agreed that we would neither support nor oppose a proposal
to add additional area to this District and you have made some good and valid
arguments mainly from the administrative point of view. But some of your arguments
leave the wrong impression with the listener and at times, it looks as though
you will use any technique to reach your goal.

Additionally, the configuration of the additional property, as proposed by you,
leaves much to be desired especially when it comes directly up to a lake shore
or even wraps around a lake. You have previously explained that in some cases
this was done simply to take in one property owner, however, leaving a configuration
such as this could lead to more difficult and complicated water management in the
future. I suggest that you give consideration to relocation of some of the lines.

Jim, please understand that this letter does not change our basic position
and we still neither oppose nor endorse the addition of property to this District.
But I do believe it important that you know some of my personal concerns on the issue.